People vs. Batin

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 539 2/8/18, 9:58 PM
272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Batin
*
G.R. No. 177223. November 28, 2007.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

CASTOR BATIN, accused-appellant.
Criminal Law; Principals by Inducement; Inducement may be

by acts of command, advice or through influence or agreement for
consideration.·Inducement may be by acts of command, advice or
through influence or agreement for consideration. The words of
advice or the influence must have actually moved the hands of the
principal by direct participation. We have held that words of
command of a father may induce his son to commit a crime. In
People v. Tamayo, 44 Phil. 38 (1922), we held that the moral
influence of the words of the father may determine the course of
conduct of a son in cases in which the same words coming from a
stranger would make no impression. There is no doubt in our minds
that CastorÊs words were the determining cause of the commission
of the crime. As stated above, Vilma Juadines Rodriguez testified
that the eighteenyear-old Neil Batin asked his father before
shooting: „Tay, banatan ko na?‰ Neil Batin was clearly seeking the
consent of his father before proceeding with the act, and it was
CastorÊs words „Sige, banatan mo na‰ that sealed Eugenio RefugioÊs
fate.
Criminal Procedure; Right to be Informed; Information; The

main purpose of requiring the various elements of a crime to be set
forth in an Information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare
his defense.·Pertinently, we have held in Balitaan v. Court of First
Instance of Batangas, 115 SCRA 729 (1982), that the main purpose
of requiring the various elements of a crime to be set forth in an
Information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense.
He is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that
constitute the offense. We added in said case that [I]t is often
difficult to say what is a matter of evidence, as distinguished from
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016175b43d9cdd603fc6003600fb002c009e/p/AQF223/?username=Guest Page 1 of 27
facts necessary to be stated in order to render the information

sufficiently certain to identify the offense. As a general rule,
matters of evidence, as distinguished from facts essential to the
description of the offense, need not be averred. For instance, it is
not necessary to show on the face of an information for forgery in
what manner a person is to be defrauded, as that is a matter of
evidence at the trial. We hold that
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
273
VOL. 539, NOVEMBER 28, 2007 273
People vs. Batin
the allegation of treachery in the Information is sufficient.

Jurisprudence is replete with cases wherein we found the allegation
of treachery sufficient without any further explanation as to the
circumstances surrounding it.
Same; Same; Evidentiary facts need not be alleged in the

information because these are matters of defense.·Like in the
previous two cases, this Court found the Information to have
sufficiently alleged treachery as a qualifying circumstance.
Evidentiary facts need not be alleged in the information because
these are matters of defense. Informations need only state the
ultimate facts; the reasons therefor could be proved during the trial.
Damages; Formula for Loss of Earning Capacity.·The Court of

Appeals also modified the trial courtÊs computation of the indemnity
for loss of earning capacity. The trial court, finding the work of
Eugenio Refugio to be hazardous, reduced his life expectancy to 20
years. This modification is in accord with our ruling in Pleyto v.
Lomboy, 432 SCRA 329 (2004). Pleyto, offers the following
computation for the award for loss of earning capacity:
Net Earning = 2/3 x (80 – Age at the x (Gross Annual Income
–
Capacity time of death) Reasonable &
Necessary
Living Expenses)
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Public AttorneyÊs Office for accused-appellant.
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
1
We are reviewing herein the Decision of the Court of
Appeals dated 6 February 2007, in CA-G.R. CR HC No.
01396, affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of
_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok with

then Presiding Justice Ruben T. Reyes (now Associate Justice of this
Court) and Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, concurring. Rollo,
pp. 14-20.
274

People vs. Batin
Quezon City, convicting father and son, Castor and Neil

Batin, of the crime of murder. The conviction was for the
killing of one Eugenio Refugio, who was shot in the
afternoon of 21 October 1994, while he was leaning against
a mango tree near his house on St. Peter Street, San Paolo
Subdivision, Nagkakaisang Nayon, Novaliches, Quezon
City. 2
The Information against Castor and Neil Batin was
filed by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City on
11 April 1995, alleging as follows:
„That on or about the 21st day of October, 1994, in Quezon City,

Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring together,
confederating with and mutually helping each other, did, then and
there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, with
treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, and with evident
premeditation, attack, assault and employ personal violence upon
the person of one EUGENIO REFUGIO y ZOSA, by then and there
shooting him with a handgun, hitting him on the right side of his
stomach, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds

which were the direct and immediate cause of his untimely death,
to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of said Eugenio Refugio y
Zosa, in such amount as may be awarded under the provisions of
the Civil Code.‰
Castor and Neil Batin entered pleas of not guilty.

The prosecution, presented as its witnesses Eusebio
Farrales, Vilma Juadinez Rodriguez, Florante Baltazar,
Josephine Refugio, PO3 Marifor Segundo and Police
Inspector Solomon Segundo, offered the following version of
the facts, as summarized by the trial court:
„EugenioÊs wife, Josephine Refugio, was with him when he was

shot, facing him as he leaned against the mango tree and, in fact,
had her arms resting on his shoulders. She recalled that before the
shooting, she was at home at No. 4-A St. Peter Street that afternoon
when, looking out of the window, she caught sight of Castor Batin
washing his feet at a nearby faucet. Castor was angrily muttering,
_______________
2 CA Rollo, pp. 9-10.
275
VOL. 539, NOVEMBER 28, 2007 275

People vs. Batin
and she distinctly heard him say, among the other things he said:
„Mga matatandang kunsintidor, dapat manahimik na.‰ Then, being
through with washing himself, Castor moved towards the street.
Seeing this, she went down and also went to the street because of a
feeling of uneasiness („Para po akong kinakabahan, kasi, ganoon
naman ang ginagawa nila lagi, eh, pag nalalasing‰). Finding her
husband leaning against the mango tree on the side of St. Peter
Street, she went to him. She tried to talk Eugenio into going home
with her because Castor was again into one of his wild ways
(„Nagwawala na naman, daldal ng daldal‰). As he was talking with
Eugenio, she glanced to her left and saw Neil Batin standing at the
gate to their (BatinsÊ) compound, looking towards her and her
husband. A few moments later, Neil went to one of the parked cars,
opened its door, and took a gun from inside. She next noticed Castor
going towards Neil as the latter stood at the side of the car and
shouting: „Huwag!‰ Castor grabbed the gun from Neil. After the
gun was taken from him, Neil just proceeded towards the right rear
of the car. Castor followed Neil and handed the gun back to him.
When she shifted her glance from the Batins, Josephine heard
Castor ordering his son: „Sige, banatan mo na.‰ Neil responded by
drawing the gun from his waistline, raising and aiming it at her
and her husband, and firing twice from his eye-level. Both
Josephine and Eugenio fell to the ground, the former, backwards,
and the latter landing on top of her. As they tried to get up, Eugenio
uttered to her: „Nanay, may tama ako.‰ She then pulled her
husband by the shoulder of his shirt so that she could take him to
their house as he was already slumped to the right. She later
rushed her husband to the Quezon City General Hospital, where he
underwent surgery, but later expired.
Other eyewitnesses from the neighborhood were presented and
they substantially corroborated her testimonial account.
One of them, Eusebio Farrales, a resident of No. 7 St. Paul
Street, in relation to which St. Peter Street was perpendicular,
recalled being at the barangay outpost near the corner of St. Peter
Street and St. Paul Street between 3:00 and 3:30 pm of the
afternoon of October 21, 1994·engaged in the clearing of the debris
of the recent typhoon·when he heard someone cursing and
challenging to a fight. Walking towards St. Peter Street where the
voice came, he saw that it was Castor. He also saw other neighbors,
namely, Eugenio, Josephine, and EugenioÊs mother, Emilia Refugio.
Accord-
276

People vs. Batin
ing to Farrales, Castor was moving aimlessly for around five

minutes („Walang direktion at pa-ikot ikot lang siya doon‰) while
cussing: „Putang ina ninyo, sino ang matapang lumabas.‰
Farrales stated that a white car and a white-and-yellow colored
taxicab were parked on the side portion of the street fronting the
gate to the compound of the Batins and near where Eugenio and
Josephine stood. Emilia, the mother of Eugenio, then came towards
him, but he advised her to seek assistance from the barangay tanod.
After Emilia proceeded towards St. Paul Street to do so, Neil came
out through the gate, opened the door of the white car, took out a
gun from inside, and handed the gun to Castor, but the latter
returned the gun to Neil. Upon getting back the gun, Neil reentered
the yard through the gate.
Farrales asserted that in the meanwhile Eugenio remained

leaning against the mango tree with Josephine facing him and her
arms resting on his shoulders. They were in this position when Neil
again came out through the gate a few moments later and
proceeded to the right side of the car, still holding the handgun.
From there, Neil fired twice at the Refugios. The Refugios both fell
to the left of the mango tree. Farrales saw both Castor and Neil
quickly enter the compound. At that point, Farrales decided to run
home in order to summon Alfredo Dizon, his tenant, who was a
police officer because he feared that the Batins might escape from
the scene by car.
Farrales and Dizon lost no time in going to the place of the
Batins. After Dizon talked with Castor at the gate of the latterÊs
compound, the latter entered the house of his nephew, Ricky
Basilio, which was beside CastorÊs own house. A few moments later,
Castor came out of BasilioÊs house to let Dizon in through the gate.
It was about this time that the responding police officers arrived at
the scene. The victim had been rushed to the hospital immediately.
Another neighbor, Vilma Juadines Rodriguez, resident of No. 7-A
St. Peter Street, declared that while she was at home taking care of
her baby at between 3:00 and 3:30 pm of October 21, 1994, she
heard someone challenging others to a fight; that looking out of her
window („dungaw‰), she saw that it was Boy Batin·Castor·and
he was then walking about on St. Peter Street; that just then, her
child cried, and so she went to him; that upon returning to the
window to call her other child, she saw Castor hand over a handgun
to Neil, and the latter thereafter entered through their gate; that
she next saw Neil load bullets into the gun and then tucking it in
his
277
VOL. 539, NOVEMBER 28, 2007 277

People vs. Batin
right waistline; that after loading, Neil went out to the street, went
between the parked white car and yellow taxicab, aimed the gun at
Eugenio and Josephine who were at the mango tree, and then asked
Castor: „Tay, banatan ko na?‰; that Castor replied: „Sige, anak,
banatan mo na.‰ that, at that instant, Neil fired two shots; that as
she went down to get her other child upon hearing the gunshots,
she heard Josephine say: „Tay, may tama ka‰; that she later
reentered her house; and that she knew that Eugenio died
afterwards.
Although Eugenio was rushed to the Quezon City General

Hospital right after the shooting and was operated on, he expired
the next day. His remains were properly identified in writing by his
3
brother, Tito Eugenio.‰
The medico-legal officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory

Service, Dr. Florante Baltazar, conducted an autopsy on
EugenioÊs
4
remains. In his Medico-Legal Report No. M-1715-
94, he indicated that Eugenio sustained one gunshot
wound, which was, however, fatal, because „it went slightly
upward, slightly anteriorward from the right to the left of
the body, fracturing the right to [the] left [of the] thoracic
region, lacerating the right lumbar region.‰ Dr. Baltazar
made the certification
5
as to the cause of death in the death
certificate. 6
Upon a written request from the Novaliches Police
Station, Quezon City, Police Inspector Solomon Segundo,
Chief of the Firearms Identification Branch of the Central
Crime Laboratory, Northern Police District Command,
Quezon City, conducted the ballistics examination to
ascertain whether or not the bullet recovered from the
victim was fired from the specimen firearm submitted for
examination. 7P/Insp. Segundo prepared Ballistics Report
No. B-042-94, 8
wherein he certified that the bullet from the
recovery box and the bullet recovered
_______________
3 Id., at pp. 35-38.

4 Records, p. 227.
5 Id., at p. 231.
6 Id., at p. 275.
7 Id., at p. 277.
8 Id.
278

People vs. Batin
9
from the10victimÊs body were fired from the same specimen
firearm. This conclusion was arrived at after a test fire
and a comparison under the bullet comparison microscope.
The defense, on the other hand, presented accused Neil
Batin, CastorÊs common-law wife Maricon Pantoja, and one

Restituto Paller. Neil BatinÊs testimony is summarized by
the trial court as follows:
„Neil substantially claimed that it was his responsibility to conduct

his younger brothers to school and fetch them by car; that he also
drove their taxicab; that it was about 7:00 oÊclock in morning of
October 21, 1994, while he was cleaning the family-owned taxicab,
that he found a short gun („de bola‰) underneath it beside the right
rear wheel; that he picked the gun and concealed it in the
compartment of the taxicab; that he continued with his chore of
cleaning; that as soon as he finished cleaning the taxicab, he drove
the white Datsun car to Tondo to fetch his six-year old brother
Mark, the son of his father with Maricon Pantoja; that Mark was a
pupil at the Magat Salamat Elementary School in Tondo; that after
picking up Mark, they drove to the house of his uncle, Domingo
Batin, in Marulas, Valenzuela, to get his clothes from his cousin;
that they arrived there at 11:00 am, and spent around two hours
there; that from Marulas, they went home, arriving at St. Peter
Street at around 2:30 pm; that he parked the car on the road in
front of their fence; that he and Mark first entered the house to
deposit MarkÊs school things and later went outside to await the
arrival of MarkÊs mother; that his other brothers were outside; that
Castor was also outside talking with a man whose name he did not
know but whom he had seen thrice before as well as with Boy Iñigo
in front of the latterÊs house; that IñigoÊs house was 15 meters from
their gate; that Pantoja soon arrived at around 2:45 pm; that he
continued talking and playing with his brothers; and that at that
point he decided to take the gun from the compartment of the
taxicab·then parked around 2 ½ meters away from where he and
his brothers were·and tucked it in his waistline.
_______________
9 Id.
10 Id.
279
VOL. 539, NOVEMBER 28, 2007 279

People vs. Batin
Having thus tucked the gun, Neil went to stand at the right rear
side of the Datsun car which was parked facing the mango tree
(„halos magkatapat lang po‰). Maricon came out to the street at

that point to ask him about the time he had fetched Mark. It was
while he was standing there with the others that, according to Neil,
he suddenly felt the impulse of drawing the gun from his waistline
(„Bigla kong naisipang bunutin ang baril‰). He thus drew the gun
and turned around, but, as he did so, he accidentally pulled the
trigger, causing the gun to fire twice („Tumalikod po ako, tapos
nakalabit ko, pumutok ng dalawang beses‰).
Neil admitted knowing the late Eugenio Refugio and his wife
Josephine because they were his neighbors with only a high wall
separating their houses; but denied seeing them that afternoon
beside the mango tree.
At the sound of gunfire, Castor rushed towards Neil from where
he was in front of IñigoÊs house, shouting twice to his son: „Huwag!‰
Pantoja, for her part, forced Neil to enter the compound, where she
brought him inside the house of his aunt. Neil concealed the gun in
the ceiling of the auntÊs house.
Neil said that he and his father did not grapple inside the
Datsun car for possession of the gun; that his father did not wrest
the gun from him; that he did not enter the compound to put bullets
in the gun; that his father did not order him to shoot Eugenio; and
that his father was not drunk and challenging others to a fight. He
insisted that he and the Refugios, with whom he was acquainted
since 1987, had no misunderstandings, for he even had shared
11
drinks with the late Eugenio before October 21, 1994.‰
As regards the testimonies of the defenseÊs two other

witnesses, the trial court could not make an intelligible
narrative of the version of the facts presented by them,
considering the contradictions it found in their testimonies.
The trial court found glaring Maricon PantojaÊs „self-
contradiction‰ as to where she and the accused were when
Eugenio was shot. During the trial, Maricon testified that
she, Neil and Castor were outside their house when Neil
drew the gun and acci-
_______________
11 CA Rollo, pp. 39-41.
280

People vs. Batin
12
dentally fired. However, in her affidavit, she alleged that
they went outside their house upon hearing a gun explosion
and saw „Eugenio Refugio alone holding his stomach x x x
we have 13
no any knowledge whether he was hit by a
bullet.‰
On 8 June 1998, the trial court rendered its Decision
finding both accused guilty of murder, qualified by
treachery, to wit:
„WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused

CASTOR BATIN and NEIL BATIN guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of MURDER as defined and penalized under Art. 248,
Revised Penal Code, as amended, and they are hereby each
sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua; and ordered to pay the heirs
of EUGENIO REFUGIO, through his wife, JOSEPHINE
REFUGIO, as follows:
1] P50,000.00, as death indemnity;

2] P61,500.00, as actual damages;
3] P500,000.00, as moral damages;
4] P307,920.00, as indemnity for lost of earning capacity; and
14
5] The costs of suit.‰
Neil and Castor Batin filed an appeal with the Court of

Appeals. However, on 13 November 2000, accused Neil
Batin filed an Urgent Motion to Withdraw Appeal. The
People interposed no objection to the Motion, which was
granted.
On 6 February 2007, the Court of Appeals rendered the
assailed Decision affirming, with modification, the Decision
of the trial court, to wit:
„WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the

Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Metro Manila in Criminal
Case No. Q-95-61003 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION
as to civil liabilities. With the exception of the award of moral
damages which is reduced to P100,000.00 and the indemnity for
loss of earn-
_______________
12 Records, p. 15.
13 Id.
14 Id., at pp. 54-55.
281
VOL. 539, NOVEMBER 28, 2007 281

People vs. Batin
ing capacity which is increased to P723,840.00, the awards for

15
death indemnity and actual damages are retained.‰
Castor Batin now comes before this Court, assigning the

following errors:
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE TRIAL

COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE
ACCUSEDAPPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT AS PRINCIPAL FOR INDUCEMENT FOR THE CRIME
CHARGED.
II
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE TRIAL

COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE
16
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TRACHERY.
Castor Batin prays that the Decision of the Court of

Appeals be reversed and set aside and a new one entered
acquitting him of the crime charged. In the alternative, he
prays that he be held liable for the crime of homicide only,
arguing that the qualifying circumstance of treachery was
not sufficiently stated in the Information.
Whether there was conspiracy in the

killing of Eugenio Refugio
It is evident from CastorÊs Supplemental Brief and all his

other issuances after the withdrawal of NeilÊs appeal that
he had already discarded NeilÊs theory of accidental
shooting. Instead, his arguments are geared toward his
distancing himself from the act of Neil in shooting Eugenio
Refugio.
We cannot, however, dispose of the discussion of NeilÊs
theory of accidental shooting. As NeilÊs testimony had been
the only evidence presented by the defense to rebut the
prosecu-
_______________
15 Id., at p. 276.
16 Rollo, pp. 25-26.
282

People vs. Batin
tionÊs evidence concerning the acts of Castor during the

incident, we should carefully scrutinize NeilÊs testimony to
determine his credibility.
Neil claims that while his back was still turned against
the Refugios, he suddenly felt the impulse to draw the gun
from his waistline. He drew the gun, turned around with
the gun in hand, and accidentally fired it twice without
aiming it at anyone.
As held by the trial court, this account is plainly far-
fetched and incredible. As observed by the trial court,
„The revolver involved herein was a mechanical firearm which

belonged to the so-called double-action type of guns. This type has a
firing mechanism which permits two methods of firing·the first is
by manually cocking or retracting the hammer and then pressing
the trigger to release the hammer; the second is by applying
continuous pressure on the trigger in order to cock the hammer and
then releasing the trigger. The drop of the hammer by either
method propels the firing pin forward so that its other end strikes
the primer cap to explode the propellant charge inside the shell
which then forces out the bullet through the gun barrel. From the
nature of the firing mechanism of Exhibit „O,‰ and there being no
evidence showing that the hammer was manually cocked before the
gun fired, it was absolutely physically impossible for the gun to fire
accidentally.
In order to determine for himself how much pressure was
necessary to cock the hammer into firing position, the undersigned
presiding judge personally tested the trigger pull of Exhibit „O‰.
Even assuming that the passage of time from the date of the
shooting caused some change on the efficiency of the firing
mechanism, such change can only show up by way of a weakening
of the hammer spring. Nonetheless, it was not surprising for the
undersigned presiding judge to find heavy resistance at each trigger
pull, such that he exerted some force to cock the hammer. This
actual testing easily validated the conclusion that firing the gun
17
accidentally and unintentionally was impossible.‰
_______________
17 CA Rollo, p. 44.
283
VOL. 539, NOVEMBER 28, 2007 283

People vs. Batin
NeilÊs claim that he accidentally fired the gun twice in

quick succession is, thus, even more incredible. Given the
difficulty of pulling the trigger to cock the hammer into
firing position, it is inconceivable how the gun could have
been fired by Neil twice in quick succession except by a
deliberate and intentional pulling of the trigger.
Given the physical attributes and condition of the gun
involved in the case at bar, the testimony of Eusebio
Farrales is likewise observed to be much more credible
than that of Neil. Whereas Neil claims that he accidentally
fired the gun twice using only one hand, Eusebio Farrales
testified that Neil fired at the Refugios while holding the
gun with both hands and from a standing position.
While the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not
an absolute rule of law 18
and is in fact rarely applied in
modern jurisprudence, NeilÊs credibility has been severely
tarnished by the foregoing portion of his testimony. Thus,
we should likewise take with a grain of salt the following
parts of his testimony which tend to refute the account of
the prosecution concerning the acts of Castor during the
incident: (1) that Neil and Castor did not grapple inside the
Datsun car for possession of the gun; (2) that Castor did not
wrest the gun from him; (3) that Neil did not enter the
compound to put bullets in the gun; (4) that Castor did not
order Neil to shoot Eugenio; and (5) that Castor was not
drunk and challenging others to a fight.
As stated above, Castor has already discarded NeilÊs
theory of accidental shooting and, instead, focuses on
distancing himself from the act of Neil in shooting Eugenio
Refugio. CastorÊs principal defense in this appeal is that
the conviction of a person as a principal by inducement
requires (1) that the inducement be made with the
intention of procuring the commission of the crime; and (2)
that such inducement be the
_______________
18 People v. Paredes, 332 Phil. 633, 638-639; 264 SCRA 578, 583 (1996).
284

People vs. Batin
determining
19
cause of the commission by the material
executor.
Castor claims that there is no conclusive proof that he
participated in the shooting, and that „(h)is alleged
utterance of the words ÂSige, banatan mo naÊ ‰ cannot be
considered as the moving cause of the shooting. According
to Castor, if he had wanted his son to shoot Eusebio
Refugio, he would not have shouted „Huwag‰ and struggled
for possession of the gun.
We are not persuaded.
First of all, the theory presented by the prosecution in
both the Information and in their arguments before the
courts is not CastorÊs being a principal by inducement, but
rather his being a co-conspirator. If conspiracy is proven,
the act of one is the act of all. As stated above, the widow,
Josephine Refugio, and the neighbors·Eusebio Farrales
and Vilma Juadinez Rodriguez·testified to the fact that
Castor handed the gun to Neil and urged the latter to fire
at the Refugio spouses. The trial court, whose assessment
of the credibility of witnesses deserves great respect, since
it had the important opportunity to observe first-hand the 20
expression and demeanor of the witnesses at the trial,
found these witnesses credible, thus:
ÂFrom its careful and thorough evaluation of the record, the Court
finds that Castor and Neil conspired in shooting Eugenio. This
finding is inexorable because the testimonies of the Prosecution
witnesses·that Castor returned the gun back to Neil; that he
instigated Neil to shoot by shouting: „Sige, banatan mo na‰; and
that Neil then fired his gun twice·were credible and sufficed to
prove CastorÊs indispensable cooperation in the killing of Eugenio.
Accordingly, Castor was as much liable criminally for the death of
Eugenio as Neil, the direct participant in the killing, was.
_______________
19 People v. Kiichi Omine, 61 Phil. 609, 613-614 (1935).

20 People v. Arcilla, 326 Phil. 774, 788; 256 SCRA 757, 768 (1996);
People v. Viñas, Sr., 315 Phil. 491, 497-498; 245 SCRA 448, 453 (1995).
285
VOL. 539, NOVEMBER 28, 2007 285

People vs. Batin
The reliability of witnesses Farrales and Rodriguez, for one, cannot

be doubted. Being the neighbors of both the Batins and the
Refugios, their claim of witnessing the events that culminated into
the shooting of Eugenio was unassailable. The accused, in fact,
could not provide any reason or motive for them to testify against
21
the Batins unless it was upon the truth.Ê
While Castor was indeed heard to have shouted „Huwag,‰

this cannot be considered as reliable evidence that he tried
to dissuade Neil from firing the gun. It was established by
credible testimony that he handed back the gun to Neil and
urged him to shoot the Refugio spouses. Josephine Refugio
plainly stated on cross-examination that Castor shouted
„Huwag‰ while inside the car grappling for possession of
the gun, and not when Neil was aiming the gun at the
spouses. Thus:
(Atty. Siobal Cross-examining)

Q The second time around that you saw him was when he
moved towards the right rear of the car?
A I did not remove my sight at Neil Batin as he moved
towards this car, sir.
Q Also, without moving your glance or gaze at Neil Batin,
you saw him proceed to the right rear portion of the car
and open the right rear door of said car, is it not?
A Yes, sir.
Q And without also removing your gaze or sight at Neil
Batin, you saw him open and get a gun inside the car?
A I saw Neil Batin opened the right rear door, as if he is
putting all his body inside the car, when Mang Boy took
hold of Neil, they were grappling for possession of the
gun, and raised it above, and that was the time when
my husband saw the gun raised, and I also saw the

gun.
Court
So they were both inside the car, their arms were both
inside the car and the gun was inside the car when you
and your husband saw this particular scene?
A Yes, your Honor.
_______________
21 CA Rollo, p. 45.
286

People vs. Batin
Atty. Siobal
So you saw Castor Batin and Neil Batin grappling
for the gun when they were inside the car?
A Yes, sir, and then Castor Batin shouted „huwag.‰
Q And at that time they were grappling for the gun inside
the car and Castor Batin shouted „huwag,‰ after that,
you and your husband saw the gun atop the roof of the
car, is that what you want to convey to the Court?
A The gun was still inside the car, only we saw it through
the glass window, sir.
Q And what happened after that?
A Neil Batin got out of the car, followed by Castor Batin
and then Castor gave the gun to Neil, and after
receiving the gun, Neil placed the gun at his waist, sir.
Q You said Neil Batin got out of the car ahead of Castor
Batin, where did Neil Batin go or proceed, to what
direction?
A He proceeded to that place labeled as Exhibit „G-7‰, sir.
Q And you said Castor Batin followed Neil Batin to the
place where he proceeded here at Exhibit „G-7‰?
A Yes, sir.
Q Of course, when Neil Batin got out of the car ahead, his
back, he must have turned his back from you?
A He was sidewise in relation to me, sir.

Q How about Castor Batin, when he got out of the car, he
must have turned his back from you?
A Yes, sir.
Q And where was Castor Batin facing when you said he
gave the gun to Neil Batin?
22
A He was facing Neil, sir.
As concluded by the trial court, the circumstances

surrounding CastorÊs utterance of „Huwag!‰ shows beyond
doubt that Castor shouted the same, not to stop Neil from
firing the gun, but to force him to leave the use of the gun
to Castor.
_______________
22 TSN, 4 August 1995, pp. 15, 17-29.
287
VOL. 539, NOVEMBER 28, 2007 287

People vs. Batin
These circumstances only confirm the conspiracy between

the Batins in committing the crime: after the Batins
grappled for the gun and Castor shouted „Huwag,‰ Castor
finally decided to give the gun to Neil·a crystal-clear
expression of the agreement of the Batins concerning the
commission of a felony.
Conspiracy may also be deduced from the acts of the
appellants before, during, and after the commission of the
crime which are indicative of a joint purpose,23
concerted
action, and concurrence of sentiments. Prosecution
witnesses Josephine Refugio and Eusebio Farrales
positively indicated in their testimonies that prior to the
shooting of Eugenio Refugio, Castor was drunk, was openly
challenging others to a fight, and was uttering angry
words. It was at this juncture that witnesses saw Neil
retrieve his gun from the parked car, after which Castor
grabbed the gun from his son, grappled with it, returned it
to his son, and ordered the latter to shoot the Refugios.
Secondly, even if we pursue the theory that the defense
is trying to stir us to, the results would be the same.
CastorÊs argument is that „(h)is alleged utterance of the

words ÂSige, banatan mo naÊ cannot be considered as the
moving cause of the shooting and, therefore, he cannot be
considered a principal by inducement.
Inducement may be by acts of command, advice or
through influence or agreement for consideration. The
words of advice or the influence must have actually moved
the hands of the principal by direct participation. We have
held that words of command of a father may
24
induce his son
to commit a crime. In People v. Tamayo, we held that the
moral influence of the
_______________
23 People v. Constantino, 327 Phil. 278, 294; 257 SCRA 489, 505 (1996);
People v. De Leon, 315 Phil. 584, 594; 245 SCRA 538, 546-547 (1995);
People v. Bayrante, G.R. No. 92508, 4 August 1994, 235 SCRA 19, 29.
24 44 Phil. 38, 57 (1922), cited in Luis B. Reyes, REVISED PENAL
CODE:CRIMINAL LAW (1993 ed.), Vol. I, p. 524.
288

People vs. Batin
words of the father may determine the course of conduct of

a son in cases in which the same words coming from a
stranger would make no impression.
There is no doubt in our minds that CastorÊs words were
the determining cause of the commission of the crime. As
stated above, Vilma Juadines Rodriguez testified that the
eighteen-year-old Neil Batin asked his father before
shooting: „Tay, banatan ko na?‰ Neil Batin was clearly
seeking the consent of his father before proceeding with
25
the
act, and it was CastorÊs words „Sige, banatan mo na‰ that
sealed Eugenio RefugioÊs fate.
Whether treachery was specifically

alleged in the Information
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the

crimes against a person, employing means, methods, or
forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself
arising26 from the defense which the offended party might

make.
According to the trial court, treachery was attendant in
the killing of Eugenio because Castor ordered Neil to fire at
Eugenio after they clearly saw that he was still leaning
against the mango tree and being restrained by Josephine
who had her arms on his shoulders. Thereby, „the accused
insured their safety from any defensive or retaliatory act of
Eugenio who, in that position of helplessness and
unpreparedness, obviously had no opportunity to defend
himself or to retaliate even if he wanted to. The accused
thus consciously used the firearm to assault from a
distance, all the more to
_______________
25 Josephine Refugio testified that she heard Castor say, „Sige,

banatan mo na.‰ Vilma Juadines Rodriguez testified that the words were,
„Sige, anak, banatan mo na.‰
26 Article 14(16), Revised Penal Code.
289
VOL. 539, NOVEMBER 28, 2007 289

People vs. Batin
enhance the 27chances of killing the victim without risk to

themselves.‰
Castor does not refute the above findings of the trial
court that treachery was sufficiently proven during the
trial. All that Castor claims before us is that the qualifying
circumstance of treachery was not specifically alleged in
the Information. The Information filed against the Batins
states that „the accused, conspiring together, confederating
with and mutually helping each other, did, then and there,
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, with
treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, and with
evident premeditation, attack, assault and employ personal
violence upon the person of one EUGENIO REFUGIO y
ZOSA, by then and there shooting him with a handgun,
hitting him on the right side of his stomach, thereby
inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds which were 28
the direct and immediate cause of his untimely death.‰
Castor claims that this charge does not allege the specific
treacherous acts of the accused. According to Castor, the

allegation therein that the accused „with treachery x x x,
attack, assault and employ personal violence‰ is a mere
conclusion of law by the one who drafted the said
Information. Hence, it did not satisfy the test of sufficiency
of Information as provided in Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110
of the Rules of Court.
Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 provides:
„SEC. 8. Designation of the offense.·The complaint or information

shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver
the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its
qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation
of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of
the statute punishing it.
SEC. 9. Cause of the accusation.·The acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and
_______________
27 Rollo, p. 50.
28 Id., at p. 10.
290

People vs. Batin
aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise

language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute
but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding
to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and
aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce
judgment.‰
Pertinently, we have29 held in Balitaan v. Court of First

Instance of Batangas that the main purpose of requiring
the various elements of a crime to be set forth in an
Information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his
defense. He is presumed to have no independent knowledge
of the facts that constitute the offense. We added in said
case that
„[I]t is often difficult to say what is a matter of evidence, as

distinguished from facts necessary to be stated in order to render
the information sufficiently certain to identify the offense. As a
general rule, matters of evidence, as distinguished from facts

essential to the description of the offense, need not be averred. For
instance, it is not necessary to show on the face of an information
for forgery in what manner a person is to be defrauded, as that is a
matter of evidence at the trial.‰
We hold that the allegation of treachery in the Information

is sufficient. Jurisprudence is replete with cases wherein
we found the allegation of treachery sufficient without any
further explanation as to the circumstances surrounding it.
Here are some of the cases:
30
In People v. Lab-eo, Wilson Lab-eo was indicted for
murder under the following Information:
„That on or about October 21, 1996, at the Barangay Hall,

Poblacion, Tadian, Mountain Province, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with intent to
kill and with the use of a sharp knife, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, strike and stab Se-
_______________
29 G.R. No. L-38544, 30 July 1982, 115 SCRA 729, 740.

30 424 Phil. 482, 489; 373 SCRA 461, 465-466 (2002).
291
VOL. 539, NOVEMBER 28, 2007 291

People vs. Batin
gundina Cay-no with a well-honed and pointed knife and thereby

inflicting a mortal stab wound upon the victim as reflected in that
medico-legal certificate, to wit:
Stab wound infrascapular area left, penetrating with massive
hemathorax, which caused the death of the victim thereafter.
That the aggravating circumstances of evident
premeditation, treachery, abuse of superior strength and
craft attended the commission of the offense.‰
The accused in this case argued that the Information

above, while captioned as „Murder,‰ only charged him with
homicide as written. This Court found nothing wrong with
the Information, and ruled that the Information
sufficiently charged the accused with murder, not even
considering the absence of an explanation of the treachery
stated therein, thus:
„The fact that the qualifying circumstances were recited in the

second paragraph and not in the first paragraph of the Information,
as commonly done, is a matter of form or style for which the
prosecution should not be faulted. That the Provincial Prosecutor
decided to write the Information differently did not impair its
sufficiency. Nothing in the law prohibits the prosecutor from
adopting such a form or style. As long as the requirements of the
law are observed, the Information will pass judicial scrutiny.
xxxx
The test of sufficiency of Information is whether it enables a
person of common understanding to know the charge against him,
and the court to render judgment properly. The rule is that
qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the
Information in order not to violate the accusedÊs constitutional right
to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him. The purpose is to allow the accused to fully prepare for
his defense, precluding surprises during the trial. Significantly, the
appellant never claimed that he was deprived of his right to be fully
apprised of the nature of the charges against him because of the
31
style or form adopted in the Information.‰
_______________
31 Id., at pp. 495-497; pp. 471-474.
292

People vs. Batin
This Court went on to affirm the conviction of the accused

therein with murder qualified by treachery.
The allegation in the Information of treachery as a
qualifying
32
circumstance was similarly assailed in People v.
Opuran, wherein the charge was as follows:
Criminal Case No. 4693
„That on or about November 19, 1998, at nighttime, at Km. 1, South

Road, Municipality of Catbalogan, Province of Samar, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused,
with deliberate intent to kill and treachery, did, then and
there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault and stab
Demetrio Patrimonio, Jr., with the use of a bladed weapon (5‰ long
from tip to handle with scabbard), thereby inflicting upon the victim
fatal stab wounds on the back of his body, which wounds resulted to
his instantaneous death.
All contrary to law, and with attendant qualifying
circumstance of treachery.‰
This Court again rejected the argument of the defense by

finding the allegation of treachery sufficient, and later on
finding the accused therein guilty of murder qualified by
treachery:
ÂWe do not find merit in appellantÊs contention that he cannot be

convicted of murder for the death of Demetrio, Jr. because treachery
was not alleged with „specificity‰ as a qualifying circumstance in
the information. Such contention is belied by the information itself,
which alleged: „All contrary to law, and with the attendant
qualifying circumstance of treachery.‰ In any event, even after the
recent amendments to the Rules of Criminal Procedure, qualifying
circumstances need not be preceded by descriptive words such as
33
qualifying or qualified by to properly qualify an offense.Ê
_______________
32 G.R. Nos. 147674-75, 17 March 2004, 425 SCRA 654, 659.

33 Id., at p. 672.
293
VOL. 539, NOVEMBER 28, 2007 293

People vs. Batin
Finally, the
34
following constitutes the Information in People
v. Bajar:
„That on or about the 16th day of August 1999, at about 8:00 oÊclock
in the evening, at sitio Mohon, Barangay Mambayaan, Municipality
of Balingasag, Province of Misamis Oriental, Republic of the
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above named accused, then armed with a sharp bolo, with intent to
kill, and with evident premeditation, and treachery, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously stab one 85 year old
Aquilio Tiwanak, accusedÊs father-in-law, hitting him on the
different parts of his body, which caused his instantaneous death, to
the damage and prejudice of the heirs of Aquilio Tiwanak in such
amounts as may be allowed by law.
The aggravating circumstances of dwelling, taking advantage of
superior strength, disregard of the respect due the victim on

account of his age, habitual intoxication and relationship attended
the commission of the crime.
CONTRARY to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation
[to] Article 14, paragraph 3 and 15, and Article 15 of the Revised
Penal Code.‰
Like in the previous two cases, this Court found the

Information to have sufficiently alleged treachery as a
qualifying circumstance. Evidentiary facts need not be
alleged in the information because these are matters of
defense. Informations need only state the ultimate35 facts;
the reasons therefor could be proved during the trial.
Whether the civil liabilities of the accused

were correctly awarded by the lower courts
The trial court ordered the accused, Neil and Castor Batin,
to pay the heirs of Eugenio Refugio in the following
amounts:
_______________
34 460 Phil. 683, 688; 414 SCRA 494, 499 (2003).

35 Socrates v. Sandiganbayan, 324 Phil. 151, 172; 253 SCRA 773, 790
(1996); Gallego v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-57841, 30 July 1982, 115
SCRA 793, 797.
294

People vs. Batin
1) P50,000.00, as death indemnity;

2) P61,500.00, as actual damages;
3) P500,000.00, as moral damages;
4) P307,920.00, as indemnity for loss of earning
capacity; and
36
5) the costs of suit.
Jurisprudence pegs the death indemnity in the above

amount (P50,000.00) pursuant to the current judicial policy
on the matter. No proof thereof is required. The P61,500.00
in actual damages consists of the expenses incurred by the

family of Eugenio Refugio, which Josephine Refugio 37
testified to and was summarized in Exhibit „H‰: (1)
P25,000.00 for medicines, surgery and other expenses 38
for
the hospitalization and emergency treatment; (2)
P20,000.00 for funeral expenses, inclusive of the costs of 39
coffin, funeral services, and expenses during the wake;
and (3) P6,500.00 as for burial expenses.
The Court of Appeals also modified the trial courtÊs
computation of the indemnity for loss of earning capacity.
The trial court, finding the work of Eugenio Refugio to be
hazardous, reduced his life expectancy to 20 years.
This modification
40
is in accord with our ruling in Pleyto v.
Lomboy. Pleyto offers the following computation for the
award for loss of earning capacity:
Net Earning = 2/3 x (80 – Age at x (Gross Annual

Capacity time of death) Income – Reasonable
& Necessary Living
Expenses)
_______________
36 CA Rollo, pp. 54-55.

37 Records, p. 233.
38 Id., at pp. 236-255.
39 Id., at p. 234.
40 G.R. No. 148737, 16 June 2004, 432 SCRA 329, 341.
295
VOL. 539, NOVEMBER 28, 2007 295

People vs. Batin
Eugenio Refugio, who was 31 years old at the time of his

death, had a daily income of P145.00. The Court of Appeals
multiplied this amount by 26 working days to get Eugenio
RefugioÊs monthly income of P3,770.00. The Court of
Appeals thus applied the Pleyto formula as follows:
Net Earning = 2/3 x (80–31) x [(P3770 x 12) – (P3770 x 12)]

Capacity
Net Earning = 2/3 x (49) x [(P45,240) – (P22,620)]
Capacity
Net Earning = 32 x [P22,620]

Capacity
41
Net Earning = P723,840
Capacity
Lastly, the Court of Appeals found the award of

P500,000.00 as moral damages to be excessive, and instead
fixed the amount at P100,000.00. In accord with prevailing
jurisprudence,
42
however, we further reduce this amount to
P50,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals
affirming with modification the conviction of accused-
appellant Castor Batin for murder is AFFIRMED with
FURTHER MODIFICATION as to the amount of the moral
damages, which is hereby reduced to P50,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
Ynares-Santiago (Actg. C.J., Chairperson), Austria-

Martinez, Corona and Nachura, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed with further modification.
_______________
41 Rollo, p. 19.
42 Pleyto v. Lomboy, supra note 40 at p. 342.
296

People vs. Tumulak
Notes.·The computation of loss of earning capacity should

be based not on the net monthly income of the deceased but
on his gross annual income minus the necessary and
incidental living expenses which the victim would have
incurred if he were alive, estimated at 50% of the gross
annual income. (People vs. Mataro, 354 SCRA 27 [2001])
There is treachery „when the offender commits any of
the crimes against the person, employing means, methods
or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended party might

take.‰ (People vs. Lozano, 412 SCRA 190 [2003])
··o0o··
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

People vs. Batin

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

People vs. Batin

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 539 2/8/18, 9:58 PM

272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

Criminal Law; Principals by Inducement; Inducement may be

Criminal Procedure; Right to be Informed; Information; The

facts necessary to be stated in order to render the information

VOL. 539, NOVEMBER 28, 2007 273

People vs. Batin

the allegation of treachery in the Information is sufficient.

Same; Same; Evidentiary facts need not be alleged in the

Damages; Formula for Loss of Earning Capacity.·The Court of

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

1 Penned by Associate Justice Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok with

274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Quezon City, convicting father and son, Castor and Neil

„That on or about the 21st day of October, 1994, in Quezon City,

stomach, thereby inflicting upon him serious and mortal wounds

Castor and Neil Batin entered pleas of not guilty.

„EugenioÊs wife, Josephine Refugio, was with him when he was

2 CA Rollo, pp. 9-10.

VOL. 539, NOVEMBER 28, 2007 275

276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ing to Farrales, Castor was moving aimlessly for around five

Farrales asserted that in the meanwhile Eugenio remained

VOL. 539, NOVEMBER 28, 2007 277

Although Eugenio was rushed to the Quezon City General

The medico-legal officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory

3 Id., at pp. 35-38.

278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Batin, CastorÊs common-law wife Maricon Pantoja, and one

„Neil substantially claimed that it was his responsibility to conduct

VOL. 539, NOVEMBER 28, 2007 279

(„halos magkatapat lang po‰). Maricon came out to the street at

As regards the testimonies of the defenseÊs two other

11 CA Rollo, pp. 39-41.

280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

„WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused

1] P50,000.00, as death indemnity;

Neil and Castor Batin filed an appeal with the Court of

„WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the

VOL. 539, NOVEMBER 28, 2007 281

ing capacity which is increased to P723,840.00, the awards for

Castor Batin now comes before this Court, assigning the

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE TRIAL

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE TRIAL

Castor Batin prays that the Decision of the Court of

Whether there was conspiracy in the

It is evident from CastorÊs Supplemental Brief and all his

282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

tionÊs evidence concerning the acts of Castor during the

„The revolver involved herein was a mechanical firearm which

VOL. 539, NOVEMBER 28, 2007 283

NeilÊs claim that he accidentally fired the gun twice in

that such inducement be the

284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

19 People v. Kiichi Omine, 61 Phil. 609, 613-614 (1935).

VOL. 539, NOVEMBER 28, 2007 285

The reliability of witnesses Farrales and Rodriguez, for one, cannot

While Castor was indeed heard to have shouted „Huwag,‰

(Atty. Siobal Cross-examining)

my husband saw the gun raised, and I also saw the

286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

A He was sidewise in relation to me, sir.